Facts
- Iris Charles died in 1986 owning two premises on Cork Street, Roseau, Dominica: No. 9 (her residence) and No. 18 (a dwelling house with an “addition” consisting of a garage and storeroom).
- No. 18 (house plus garage/storeroom) was registered as a single lot under one certificate of title.
- Iris’s 1980 will devised No. 9 to her nephew, John A. Charles, “absolutely.”
- The will devised No. 18 to her niece, Yvette Barzey, as “my house and lot,” and separately stated: “The addition to the house where the garage and storeroom is located I give to my nephew Mr John A. Charles to be used by him as long as he wishes.”
- John had long used the garage and storeroom for storage connected to a pharmaceutical business operated from adjacent premises.
- After Iris’s death, a dispute arose whether Barzey took No. 18 free of any interest in favor of John, or whether John retained an enforceable interest in the garage and storeroom.
Issues
- Whether the will, properly construed, gave John a valid life interest (or other limited interest) in the garage and storeroom at No. 18, with Barzey taking the fee simple subject to that interest.
- Whether the local Wills Act provision (presuming a devise passes the whole estate absent contrary intention) required Barzey to take an immediate unencumbered fee simple in No. 18.
- Whether the gift to John “to be used by him as long as he wishes” was void as a repugnant condition inconsistent with Barzey’s fee-simple devise.
Decision
- The Privy Council allowed John’s appeal and reversed the Court of Appeal.
- The Board restored the trial judge’s order that Barzey took the fee simple in No. 18 subject to a life interest in favor of John in the garage and storeroom.
- The Board held the will showed a contrary intention sufficient to displace any statutory presumption of an unencumbered absolute estate in possession.
- The Board held the repugnancy doctrine did not invalidate a conventional carve-out of a life interest from a fee simple, and distinguished authority relied on by the Court of Appeal.
Legal Principles
- A will is construed to give effect to the testator’s intention, so far as consistent with law, reading the dispositions as a coherent scheme.
- A statutory presumption that a devise without words of limitation passes the whole estate applies only absent “contrary intention”; it does not prevent carving out lesser estates or determine whether the fee simple is in possession or remainder.
- A life interest (or comparable limited estate) carved out of land devised in fee simple is compatible with the fee simple and is not void for repugnancy.
- The repugnancy doctrine is directed at conditions that negate essential incidents of a fee simple (such as certain disabling restraints), not at ordinary divisions of enjoyment between a life tenant and a remainderman.
- Informal language such as “to be used by him as long as he wishes” may be construed, in context, as creating a life interest rather than an indeterminate or unlimited right.
Conclusion
The Privy Council held that the will validly granted John a life interest in the garage and storeroom at No. 18, and that Barzey’s fee simple in the property was taken subject to that interest; neither the Wills Act presumption nor the doctrine of repugnancy defeated the carve-out.